Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 4319
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. DURAISWAMY, J.
L.Sulthana - Appellant
Versus
The Union of India Owning Southern Railway rep. by its General Manager, Chennai - 3. - Respondent
C.M.A. No.2124 of 2015
Decided On : 04-12-2017
For the Appellant : Mr.S.Parthasarathy
For the Respondent: Ms.T.P.Savitha
Headnote:
Claim of compensation - Challenging the order – injuries – Condo nation of delay - It is the case of the claimant/appellant that on 27.03.2006, she and her father came to Krishnarajapuram railway station for proceeding to Ambur and also took train ticket. The claimant and her father boarded the passenger train and when the train reached Ambur and when it was slowly entering into Ambur railway station, she tried to alight from the said train and slipped from the said train and fell in between the train and the railway track in the said station and was ran over by the said train. Out of the said accident, the claimants both legs were crushed and she was immediately taken to Government Hospital, Ambur, where she got treatment – Held, There is no dispute that if a party seeking for condonation of delay failed to give sufficient cause for the condonation of delay, the delay could not be condoned. In other words, only if the party seeking for condonation of delay gives sufficient cause, the delay could be condoned. In the case on hand, the claimants both legs were amputated and she was not in a position to move around without the help of a person. That being the case, the appellant cannot be expected to file the claim petition in time, that too, when she lost both her legs - In these circumstances, the ratio laid down in the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The ratio laid down in the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant squarely applies to the present case. Since the claimant has satisfactorily explained the reasons for the delay, I am inclined to condone the same. Accordingly, the order dated 26.08.2015 passed in I.A. No.61 of 2015 in Dy No.83 of 2015 is set aside. The application in I.A.No.61 of 2015 stands allowed. The Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai is directed to dispose of the claim petition as expeditiously as possible. However, as submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the claimant is not entitled to claim any interest on the compensation, if any awarded by the Tribunal, for the delay period - respondents had filed the suit for specific performance and when the trial court found that the claim for specific performance based on the agreement was correct but exercised its discretion not to grant the relief for specific performance but grant only a payment of damages and the respondents were really keen to get the decree for specific performance by filing the appeals, they should have shown utmost diligence and come forward with justifiable reasons when an enormous delay of five years was involved in getting its appeals registered - When we apply those principles to the case on hand, it has to be stated that the failure of the respondents in not showing due diligence in filing of the appeals and the enormous time taken in the refiling can only be construed, in the absence of any valid explanation, as gross negligence and lacks in bona fides as displayed on the part of the respondents. Further, when the respondents have not come forward with proper details as regards the date when the papers were returned for refiling, the non-furnishing of satisfactory reasons for not refiling of papers in time and the failure to pay the court fee at the time of the filing of appeal papers on 6-9-2007, the reasons - appeal is allowed
JUDGMENT :
Challenging the order passed in I.A.No.61 of 2015 in Dy. No.83 of 2015 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai, the claimant has filed the above appeal.
2. The claimant filed the claim petition in Dy. No.83 of 2015 claiming a total compensation of Rs.4 lakhs for the injuries sustained by her out of the accident by falling from the train. The claimant filed the claim petition after a delay of 2738 days. To condone the delay of 2738 days in filing the claim petition, the claimant filed I.A.No.61 of 2015, which was dismissed by the Tribunal, against which, the claimant filed the appeal.
3. It is the case of the claimant/appellant that on 27.03.2006, she and her father came to Krishnarajapuram railway station for proceeding to Ambur and also took train ticket. The claimant and her father boarded the passenger train and when the train reached Ambur and when it was slowly entering into Ambur railway station, she tried to alight from the said train and slipped from the said train and fell in between the train and the railway track in the said station and was ran over by the said train. Out of the said accident, the claimant's both legs were crushed and she was immediately taken to Government Hospital, Ambur, where she got treatment. Thereafter, the claimant was transferred to the Government Hospital, Vellore, where both her legs were amputated. Even after continuous medical treatment for three years, the wounds did not heal. Further, she could not move around without the help of a person. In these circumstances, the claimant has stated that she could not meet her lawyer at Chennai for filing the claim petition before the Tribunal. Hence there is a delay of 2738 days in filing the claim petition.
4. The respondent filed a counter stating that the claimant should have filed the claim petition within one year from the date of accident and the reasons given in the affidavit filed in support of the petition cannot be accepted. Further, the respondent has stated that the claimant has to explain the reasons for the delay in a satisfactory manner. The Tribunal took into consideration the case of both parties and not satisfied with the reasons stated by her, dismissed the application.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent.
6. On a careful consideration of the materials available on record and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, it could be seen that the claimant had suffered serious injuries on both her legs, which resulted in amputation of both her legs. She has stated that she was taking treatment for more than three years and that she could not move around anywhere without the assistance of a person. When the claimant's legs were amputated and she was not in a position to move around to contact her counsel to file the claim petition, the Tribunal could have taken a sympathetic view and could have condoned the delay. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, in support of his contention, relied upon the judgment in Adhilakshmi Vs. Union of India (2016 (3) CTC 268), wherein this Court has held as follows:
13. The first petitioner would have been the happiest person, if she is able to get the compensation at the earliest, more than anyone else. Under such circumstances, if there is a delay, then it must be only on account of want of knowledge, as alleged by her, because earlier remedy would have given complete financial support to her. The forsaken society in which she was living may be the cause for that, for which, she cannot be punished.
7. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the claimant shall not claim interest for the delay period of 2738 days in the event of the Tribunal awarding any compensation.
8. Countering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Ms.T.P.Savitha, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent submitted th
